Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[EphraimB]

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

Are you seriously keeping that  extension to Reeds Lane? 

 

The plan would be that the  extends to Lefferts Blvd with all the  trains going to Far Rockaway. Far Rockaway-Mott Av can only have 2 trains stored in there so they would build a complex Reads Lane Terminal station which would replace Mott Av with Reads Lane as the new terminal station and the new Reads Lane terminal station would be build with tail tracks to fit more trains. It would be really needed because of more frequent trains for CBTC. I'm keep on seeing Far Rockaway ridership growing.

[OIG119]

1 hour ago, EphraimB said:

The plan would be that the  extends to Lefferts Blvd with all the  trains going to Far Rockaway. Far Rockaway-Mott Av can only have 2 trains stored in there so they would build a complex Reads Lane Terminal station which would replace Mott Av with Reads Lane as the new terminal station and the new Reads Lane terminal station would be build with tail tracks to fit more trains. It would be really needed because of more frequent trains for CBTC. I'm keep on seeing Far Rockaway ridership growing.

A new yard could be built over Beach Channel Drive in Far Rockaway if necessary, but there's already a yard at Rockaway Park.

[EphraimB]

6 minutes ago, OIG119 said:

A new yard could be built over Beach Channel Drive in Far Rockaway if necessary, but there's already a yard at Rockaway Park.

A yard is for storing trains. Reads Lane Terminal will be a 2-track island platform with tail tracks so it can be possible to have 20tph for CBTC.

[R68OnBroadway]

10 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

A yard is for storing trains. Reads Lane Terminal will be a 2-track island platform with tail tracks so it can be possible to have 20tph for CBTC.

Good luck building it, especially over no streets and just houses. This is a pointless extension, given Reads Lane doesn't have any businesses on it.

Now before you complain about capacity at Far Rockaway, we can always send extra trains to Rockaway Park or rebuild the x-crossover with higher speed switches. If you want a quicker trip tp the station, take the Q113/114 or get a bike.

[EphraimB]

42 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Good luck building it, especially over no streets and just houses. This is a pointless extension, given Reads Lane doesn't have any businesses on it.

Now before you complain about capacity at Far Rockaway, we can always send extra trains to Rockaway Park or rebuild the x-crossover with higher speed switches. If you want a quicker trip tp the station, take the Q113/114 or get a bike.

The extra trains to Rockaway Park won't work because CBTC with trains every 2 minutes will result in a lot of trains in layover in Far Rockaway.

The Q113/114 is not quicker because it's 8 minutes to the nearest bus stop with long waiting times resulting in walking being more quicker.

[Around the Horn]

Now why the hell would there ever be trains to the Rockaways every two minutes? There's nowhere near the ridership for that on the entire peninsula...

Edited June 19, 2018 by Around the Horn

[LGA Link N Train]

11 hours ago, EphraimB said:

The Q113/114 is not quicker because it's 8 minutes to the nearest bus stop with long waiting times resulting in walking being more quicker.

If that's the case, then why not think of a plan that will focus on improving the Q113/114 buses. That's a simple no Brainer right there.

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Now why the hell would there ever be trains to the Rockaways every two minutes? There's nowhere near the ridership for that on the entire peninsula...

You damn right, it'll be years before we put CBTC on the Rockaways

[RR503]

13 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Now why the hell would there ever be trains to the Rockaways every two minutes? There's nowhere near the ridership for that on the entire peninsula...

Forget ridership, think track layout. Let's imagine this is the best case scenario and some other Manhattan trunk is connected to Fulton local. Regardless of that, you can still only pull one track per direction out of Euclid onto the Liberty El, so 30tph. The line then branches once at Rockaway Boulevard, and once at Hammels. Even if you keep Rockaway Park a shuttle, you still aren't sending more than 15tph to FRock -- which happens to be that terminal's capacity sans CBTC. 

The layover issue is solved there -- and at every other stub terminal -- daily. When it's time for a train to go OOS, they fumigate and deadhead to either RPK yard or Pitkin. If you don't believe me go stand at Rock Boulevard at around 7 and watch the parade of empty  trains head down the middle. 

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

On 6/18/2018 at 9:05 PM, EphraimB said:

The plan would be that the  extends to Lefferts Blvd with all the  trains going to Far Rockaway. Far Rockaway-Mott Av can only have 2 trains stored in there so they would build a complex Reads Lane Terminal station which would replace Mott Av with Reads Lane as the new terminal station and the new Reads Lane terminal station would be build with tail tracks to fit more trains. It would be really needed because of more frequent trains for CBTC. I'm keep on seeing Far Rockaway ridership growing.

Whos paying for all of this? Certainly not the debt ridden MTA, I've said it before and might as well say it again, but I don't see how they'd want to invest time and money into building Reed's lane. It's in an area that would see little ridership for many years, and the MTA likely wouldn't make profit for these many years either. Far Rockaway ridership is growing somewhat noticeably, but to require trains at CBTC headway's? In an area where these trains are still frequently found empty or with 2-3 people in them? The costs of making the Rockaways CBTC would outweigh the positives for this in my opinon, so would making tail tracks, which would make the expansion more expensive and serve little means considering the amount of people who may actually benefit from it. The MTA sees greater potential making 8th av. or Fulton St. CBTC first since those areas are growing quicker than the Rockaways and crowd the line everyday, it would be a better investment. So why would they want to build a costly expansion into what is basically a suburb, with arguably meaningless tail tracks along with the cost of bringing CBTC to the Rockaways, all with little reward and high chance the MTA will further go into dept?

I would instead (as @LGA) said, make the Q113/Q114 have lower headway's, and/or make service more reliable since its another (more practical) option you have, and I know how much of a hellhole it can be. Improving the route would benefit much more people than a costly subway expansion or CBTC, and it can certainly be done quicker and cheaper than the former, though that's a conversation for another thread.

Edited June 20, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[Coney Island Av]

5 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Whos paying for all of this? Certainly not the debt ridden MTA, I've said it before and might as well say it again, but I don't see how they'd want to invest time and money into building Reed's lane. It's in an area that would see little ridership for many years, and the MTA likely wouldn't make profit for these many years either. Far Rockaway ridership is growing somewhat noticeably, but to require trains at CBTC headway's? In an area where these trains are still frequently found empty or with 2-3 people in them? The costs of making the Rockaways CBTC would outweigh the positives for this in my opinon, so would making tail tracks, which would make the expansion more expensive and serve little means considering the amount of people who may actually benefit from it. The MTA sees greater potential making 8th av. or Fulton St. CBTC first since those areas are growing quicker than the Rockaways and crowd the line everyday, it would be a better investment. So why would they want to build a costly expansion into what is basically a suburb, with arguably meaningless tail tracks along with the cost of bringing CBTC to the Rockaways, all with little reward and high chance the MTA will further go into dept?

I would instead (as @LGA) said, make the Q113/Q114 have lower headway's, and/or make service more reliable since its another (more practical) option you have, and I know how much of a hellhole it can be. Improving the route would benefit much more people than a costly subway expansion or CBTC, and it can certainly be done quicker and cheaper than the former, though that's a conversation for another thread.

Agreed 100%. Also, he doesn't even realize that  trains can simply terminate at Rockaway Park or Howard Beach-JFK if Far Rockaway-Mott Av really did have a problem turning trains. He also doesn't know that it's impossible to run the  at 30TPH (every two minutes) because it shares tracks with the  in Cranberry and the  on CPW. 

Personally, I think he's trying to hide the secret from us. In other words, he wants to put up a justifiable reason for this pointless extension, but in reality, he only wants it built so he won't have to walk 20+ minutes. 

You know, I've watched him post several maps that still have the  extension to Reeds Lane, which won't be faster than taking the Q113/Q114 to Far Rockaway. I think he's just too afraid to admit he's wrong. Think about it, if he was open to change things up a bit, he would've removed this extension months ago. But he's not, and continues to ignore our criticisms. He never looks back at his 2028 map thread and learns the lesson. It's just like making a mistake, learning from it, and moving on. 

But in this case, he keeps on making the same mistake, and never learns/moves on. Oh well... 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

Hey, I got a not too far fetched Idea for you all.

 and sent to Williamsburg and Jamaica

and maybe a blue  could run via the Brighton Line in their place.

runs from Essex to Bay Ridge - 95 Street

runs to Euclid Via a new tunnel after Whitehall

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Hey, I got a not too far fetched Idea for you all.

 and sent to Williamsburg and Jamaica

and maybe a blue  could run via the Brighton Line in their place.

runs from Essex to Bay Ridge - 95 Street

runs to Euclid Via a new tunnel after Whitehall

Looks eerily familiar.

At least give credit to @RR503 for your low effort posts.

[LGA Link N Train]

29 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Looks eerily familiar.

At least give credit to @RR503 for your low effort posts.

Alright,  I'll keep that in mind next time. I didn't go in depth with the idea anyways. 

and yes, the reason for my low effort post is because I often use a cell phone to post. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/16/2018 at 3:57 PM, RR503 said:

This is the point you're missing. The basis for this entire plan is a new set of tunnels under the river from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the bellmouths at Whitehall. Nassau/4th service is thus isolated from Broadway/Fulton, allowing for both to run into Brooklyn at 30ish tph. 

Off the bat, there's the fact that SAS Phase 4 probably will not be built within our lifetimes. I can guarantee you that Fulton will reach its breaking point before then. I agree that connecting 8th to Fulton via these tunnels would be a waste, but a Broadway service is absolutely a defensible choice.

But can both services even be able to run 30ish tph? As it is now, Montague currently has a ton of spare capacity with only the  running there. Even if the  is made a full Broadway express to/from 96th-2nd, the  will still have to run considerably less than 30tph, because it will still share the Broadway local tracks and the 60th St Tunnel with the . And would the relay tracks past Euclid Avenue be able to handle a more frequent  service, as opposed to the current and relatively infrequent ? 

Then there’s the 4th Local/Nassau K service. With only one track at Essex to turn on, it would probably have to run less frequently than the current  service. It would likely have to run the same frequency as the current  service, which turns at Whitehall middle, same as this K would do at Essex. So roughly 6-7 tph...unless they can have the southbound crew be ready to board each K train as soon as it pulls into Essex. Converting Essex into a 4-track station is an option the MTA will almost certainly not be willing to entertain.

With both the K and R services hypothetically running less than 30 tph combined, would that even justify a new tunnel, with the existing Montague Tunnel already running considerably fewer trains than that? Don’t get me wrong here, I like this proposal a lot. But I get the feeling that the MTA, the State and the Feds would use the fact that there is so much available capacity in Montague as a reason not to build another parallel tunnel. 

On 6/16/2018 at 3:40 PM, bobtehpanda said:

You'd still have to sever service to build the thing, and there isn't a whole lot of room before you start messing with the Brooklyn IRT. This is even tighter than SAS - Nassau in terms of leeway.

Yes, it may very well be easier to just build another parallel tunnel as opposed to building a connection from Montague in such tight quarters. 

On 6/16/2018 at 3:44 PM, W4ST said:

Could just south of Whitehall Street be a feasible place to build the connection? I believe there is a bellmouth there that was intended for a line along Atlantic Avenue. It would be an at-grade junction but if all trains went through the new tunnel from Whitehall, I think it could work.

It certainly could. Likely the new tunnel would go in between the Montague and Joralemon tunnels. Then once in Brooklyn it could run under Remsen St, which is parallel to Montague St. 

Speaking of Remsen St, this brings me back to my responses to @RR503 and @bobtehpanda. Perhaps there is a workable solution here. Instead of building a track connection from Schermerhorn to Montague in such tight quarters in downtown Brooklyn or spending billions of dollars on a brand new tunnel, perhaps a track connection can still be made connecting Schermerhorn to Montague. Just not in the heart of downtown Brooklyn. Perhaps the connection to Montague can be made under Brooklyn Bridge Park, as a sort of “mirror image” of the junction made by the Nassau and Broadway tracks on the Manhattan side (although if I’m not mistaken, that connection is actually made when the trains are already under the water, so we probably wouldn’t want to do that on the Brooklyn side). 

[R68OnBroadway]

19 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But can both services even be able to run 30ish tph? As it is now, Montague currently has a ton of spare capacity with only the  running there. Even if the  is made a full Broadway express to/from 96th-2nd, the  will still have to run considerably less than 30tph, because it will still share the Broadway local tracks and the 60th St Tunnel with the . And would the relay tracks past Euclid Avenue be able to handle a more frequent  service, as opposed to the current and relatively infrequent ? 

Then there’s the 4th Local/Nassau K service. With only one track at Essex to turn on, it would probably have to run less frequently than the current  service. It would likely have to run the same frequency as the current  service, which turns at Whitehall middle, same as this K would do at Essex. So roughly 6-7 tph...unless they can have the southbound crew be ready to board each K train as soon as it pulls into Essex. Converting Essex into a 4-track station is an option the MTA will almost certainly not be willing to entertain.

Could you maybe try and turn the trains using the middle tracks at Chambers or the abandoned platform at Canal?

[RR503]

10 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But can both services even be able to run 30ish tph? As it is now, Montague currently has a ton of spare capacity with only the  running there. Even if the  is made a full Broadway express to/from 96th-2nd, the  will still have to run considerably less than 30tph, because it will still share the Broadway local tracks and the 60th St Tunnel with the . And would the relay tracks past Euclid Avenue be able to handle a more frequent  service, as opposed to the current and relatively infrequent ? 

Then there’s the 4th Local/Nassau K service. With only one track at Essex to turn on, it would probably have to run less frequently than the current  service. It would likely have to run the same frequency as the current  service, which turns at Whitehall middle, same as this K would do at Essex. So roughly 6-7 tph...unless they can have the southbound crew be ready to board each K train as soon as it pulls into Essex. Converting Essex into a 4-track station is an option the MTA will almost certainly not be willing to entertain.

With both the K and R services hypothetically running less than 30 tph combined, would that even justify a new tunnel, with the existing Montague Tunnel already running considerably fewer trains than that? Don’t get me wrong here, I like this proposal a lot. But I get the feeling that the MTA, the State and the Feds would use the fact that there is so much available capacity in Montague as a reason not to build another parallel tunnel. 

If I had my way, the  wouldn't exist. There would just be an  train from Euclid to Astoria, with requisite rejiggering of service taking place on 8th/53/63 to fill the hole on QB. Even if the  keeps its current route, there is no operational law preventing the  from continuing under the river -- it's just the MTA's choice that it doesn't. 

The resulting question about Euclid is a good one. From what I've gleaned from conversations internally, Euclid has approximately the same functional capacity as Forest Hills -- so 20-24 tph, depending on how intelligently the terminal is operated. That amount of capacity is, in my opinion, more than enough for the job -- a unified Astoria-Euclid  train would still be limited to a similar throughput at the other end of its route even if the northern terminal is reconfigured, thus obviating the need for any more cap to be squeezed out of Euclid. 

Whitehall's capacity issues I think are not ones extrapolable to single track terminals at large. Trains entering the station have to traverse a steep descending grade into slow switches which lead to a curving platform, a situation which limits terminal capacity beyond that inherent in its type of design. Indeed, a well operated (no sleeping TOs, stepping back during rush hours, etc) single track terminus can turn fifteen trains per hour without issue. Given that we're rebuilding Essex into this new configuration, I think it's a safe assumption that it would be designed in such a way that it could turn at least 12tph, if not more. 

Now, 12tph isn't exactly some massive amount of service, which is why during rush hours, I'd suggest the  be extended to some South Brooklyn terminus (9th Ave? Bay Pkwy?) in order to provide higher frequency core corridor service along 4th Local/Nassau. Such an extension would have the additional benefit of eliminating termination conflicts at Broad. Combined, you then have 24tph from Nassau to South Brooklyn, and 20 or more tph from Broadway to Fulton. You'd also gain marginal amounts of capacity on the  from the elimination of the merges at Hoyt and Canal (remember, this is being paired with a restructuring of 8th Ave service), giving a total theoretical capacity increase of about 28 tph (22 Montague today, 26 Cranberry today to 24 Montague, 22 Whitehall/Schermerhorn, 30 Cranberry).

It's also worth noting that, as @R68OnBroadway pointed out above, the reopening of the side plats at Canal/Bowery would allow the current n/b track to be used for train terminaion (with a few switch edits), thus increasing Montague theoretical capacity to 30tph -- though I doubt such levels will be necessary any time in the near future. 

10 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Speaking of Remsen St, this brings me back to my responses to @RR503 and @bobtehpanda. Perhaps there is a workable solution here. Instead of building a track connection from Schermerhorn to Montague in such tight quarters in downtown Brooklyn or spending billions of dollars on a brand new tunnel, perhaps a track connection can still be made connecting Schermerhorn to Montague. Just not in the heart of downtown Brooklyn. Perhaps the connection to Montague can be made under Brooklyn Bridge Park, as a sort of “mirror image” of the junction made by the Nassau and Broadway tracks on the Manhattan side (although if I’m not mistaken, that connection is actually made when the trains are already under the water, so we probably wouldn’t want to do that on the Brooklyn side). 

Aside from the fact such an arrangement wouldn't add capacity, its construction would be technically challenging. The Montague tubes are cast iron shield tunnels -- their lining is integral to their stability. Thus (to my understanding of this engineering, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the connection of anything to the tunnel would entail digging a cut down to the bore, removing the lining, creating a junction cavern, and then covering it all back up. Doable, but extremely expensive and disruptive -- so much so that I wonder if, given the relative cheapness of modern boring techniques, it would be more cost effective to just tunnel from the provisions at Whitehall. 

[LGA Link N Train]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Aside from the fact such an arrangement wouldn't add capacity, its construction would be technically challenging. The Montague tubes are cast iron shield tunnels -- their lining is integral to their stability. Thus (to my understanding of this engineering, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the connection of anything to the tunnel would entail digging a cut down to the bore, removing the lining, creating a junction cavern, and then covering it all back up. Doable, but extremely expensive and disruptive -- so much so that I wonder if, given the relative cheapness of modern boring techniques, it would be more cost effective to just tunnel from the provisions at Whitehall. 

Well, considering the facts that you just pointed out. you'd have to underpin not only about 16-20 buildings (at the very least) but also have to underpin the Joralemon Tubes as well. If I could come up with a price I'd say that this could clock in to an estimate of about $2 Billion. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pYrH7y2LTfDK7eMXK9nYb8yPem1u6g6o/view?usp=sharing

17 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Then there’s the 4th Local/Nassau K service. With only one track at Essex to turn on, it would probably have to run less frequently than the current  service. It would likely have to run the same frequency as the current  service, which turns at Whitehall middle, same as this K would do at Essex. So roughly 6-7 tph...unless they can have the southbound crew be ready to board each K train as soon as it pulls into Essex. Converting Essex into a 4-track station is an option the MTA will almost certainly not be willing to entertain.

Trains could also turn at Chambers Street. And @RR503 If I'm not mistaken, you were the one that came up with that brown ? Personally, I don't agree with the chosen symbol, why not use the label instead since it barely runs and since you mentioned earlier that the and  can run up to 20-24 trains per hour, why not risk making the route longer while having an additional 5-10 TPH short turn at Essex or Chambers and have everything terminate at Bay Ridge - 95 Street in place of the , which under the following proposal, is terminating at Euclid? Therefore, Montague can reach to at least Near-capacity and local service can improve at 4 Avenue.

Edited June 22, 2018 by LGA Link N train
I kinda rushed it a little so I had to make a few edits

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Trains could also turn at Chambers Street. And @RR503 If I'm not mistaken, you were the one that came up with that brown ? Personally, I don't agree with the chosen symbol, why not use the label instead since it barely runs and since you mentioned earlier that the and  can run up to 20-24 trains per hour, why not risk making the route longer while having an additional 5-10 TPH short turn at Essex or Chambers and have everything terminate at Bay Ridge - 95 Street in place of the , which under the following proposal, is terminating at Euclid? Therefore, Montague can reach to at least Near-capacity and local service can improve at 4 Avenue.

I’m not at all wedded to the brown  designation — you could make it an 8 train with a color that corresponds to the T/Os mood for all I care. 

What I do think needs to be pointed out, however, are a few things you overlooked when proposing all of these trains run the full . First of all, given that Bay Ridge isn’t slated for CBTC anytime in the near future, I doubt that even with improved terminal operation practices, it’d be able to do 24 tph turning. Regardless of that, it’s actually just impossible to run 24tph of  service, as the line has to share with the , a fact which effectively caps line capacity (given current signaling) at 12tph. That’s why I have my primary SBK service ending at Essex. Once again, this isn’t to say you can’t run any  to South Brooklyn — it just means it can’t be the only service doing so. 

[officiallyliam]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Aside from the fact such an arrangement wouldn't add capacity, its construction would be technically challenging. The Montague tubes are cast iron shield tunnels -- their lining is integral to their stability. Thus (to my understanding of this engineering, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the connection of anything to the tunnel would entail digging a cut down to the bore, removing the lining, creating a junction cavern, and then covering it all back up. Doable, but extremely expensive and disruptive -- so much so that I wonder if, given the relative cheapness of modern boring techniques, it would be more cost effective to just tunnel from the provisions at Whitehall. 

Trying to modify Montague - or any of the river tubes - is rarely going to be worth it, especially not if we can get our construction costs in line. The should get its own tunnel from Whitehall to Hoyt-Schermerhorn, but that won't be very simple engineering either. Connecting to Court Street looks like the best option, but when you consider that Schermerhorn Street ends a block beyond Court, and that the Court station isn't very deep, such a connection probably won't be possible. Trying to do it would likely mean taking buildings - and using eminent domain through Brooklyn Heights is a non-starter. Atlantic looks decent as well, but the old LIRR tunnel is in the way, and it's too far from Schermerhorn; a connection would likely require lots of eminent domain or a nasty S-curve.

Would a tunnel under State Street work? The disadvantages are that you need to cross the Joralemon tunnels, and find a way to connect to Schermerhorn. That looks like it would be possible, though, if you went diagonal across Boerum Place (which is wide), and underpinned the buildings on the corners of State and Boerum and Schermerhorn and Boerum. Still complicated, undeniably - but wouldn't be the biggest engineering feat in the subway.

It would also be useful to think about building this tunnel in the style of 63rd, with two levels (or at least provisions for a second level). The second level could be used for different things - perhaps a extension under the river, or LIRR service to Lower Manhattan. Considering the lack of space for new tunnels in Downtown Brooklyn, it would be much easier to think about future expansion through the area if we leave room for it now.

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Combined, you then have 24tph from Nassau to South Brooklyn, and 20 or more tph from Broadway to Fulton. You'd also gain marginal amounts of capacity on the  from the elimination of the merges at Hoyt and Canal (remember, this is being paired with a restructuring of 8th Ave service), giving a total theoretical capacity increase of about 28 tph (22 Montague today, 26 Cranberry today to 24 Montague, 22 Whitehall/Schermerhorn, 30 Cranberry).

What to do with the 8th Avenue trains? There are several ways to approach this; in terms of increasing capacity the most, the best choice would be to keep the and together on the express tracks. We're also left with the problem, though, of what fills the hole on Queens Blvd left by the . Full-scale reshuffling and deinterlining might be a good choice for capacity reasons, but would be ambitious.

[RR503]

12 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Would a tunnel under State Street work? The disadvantages are that you need to cross the Joralemon tunnels, and find a way to connect to Schermerhorn. That looks like it would be possible, though, if you went diagonal across Boerum Place (which is wide), and underpinned the buildings on the corners of State and Boerum and Schermerhorn and Boerum. Still complicated, undeniably - but wouldn't be the biggest engineering feat in the subway.

State Street *should* work. Given their later construction date, I think it's a safe assumption that the provisions at Whitehall were engineered in such a way that they could cross Joralemon. Then, it's just a matter of cutting over a block from State to Schermerhorn without, as you say, causing excessive surface disruption. I'd wager that that could be done, especially given that you don't have to preserve a flying junction to the Transit Museum because it's, well, a museum. If they could quietly burrow that fugly set of junctions along 53rd St back in the day, we sure as hell can cut over a block now. 

Absolutely with you on expansion provisions, by the way. My pet idea is a SAS recapture of the Atlantic Branch, making a sort of super express line to Jamaica. A man can dream, after all...

20 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

What to do with the 8th Avenue trains? There are several ways to approach this; in terms of increasing capacity the most, the best choice would be to keep the and together on the express tracks. We're also left with the problem, though, of what fills the hole on Queens Blvd left by the . Full-scale reshuffling and deinterlining might be a good choice for capacity reasons, but would be ambitious.

I think this honestly comes down to the question of holisticness and the amount of political capital you're willing to spend. Obviously, the least impactful way of executing these changes would be simply to leave the  as it exists today, but that leaves some ugly merges along QB and a missed opportunity in Astoria. In this current climate, conversations about major routing and service structure changes are more viable than they've been in a long while, so I'd honestly just go for the grand prize. That said, which flavor of capacity capture you go for depends again on what you're willing to ante up. If you're predicating this effort on a full shakeup of junction operation practices, then you can just mirror 59th St at 50th St, send the  via 63, the new 8th Ave exp service via QB local, and leave it at that. Flexibility for all who we can give it to, express/local variety on trans-river corridors, et voila, a new 2-track trunk line has been discovered in Manhattan. That said, if junction ops aren't fixed, or the fixes aren't drastic enough, you're left with solely the option of full scale deinterlining. We've all heard the various ways of going about this, so I don't think they bear repeating in the post, but what is salient is that such planning greatly limits single seat flexibility in key markets -- something sure to cost the planner who proposes it. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/20/2018 at 9:42 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Looks eerily familiar.

At least give credit to @RR503 for your low effort posts.

Strangely enough, there’s also a discussion about this on SubChat going on now.

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

If I had my way, the  wouldn't exist. There would just be an  train from Euclid to Astoria, with requisite rejiggering of service taking place on 8th/53/63 to fill the hole on QB. Even if the  keeps its current route, there is no operational law preventing the  from continuing under the river -- it's just the MTA's choice that it doesn't. 

The resulting question about Euclid is a good one. From what I've gleaned from conversations internally, Euclid has approximately the same functional capacity as Forest Hills -- so 20-24 tph, depending on how intelligently the terminal is operated. That amount of capacity is, in my opinion, more than enough for the job -- a unified Astoria-Euclid  train would still be limited to a similar throughput at the other end of its route even if the northern terminal is reconfigured, thus obviating the need for any more cap to be squeezed out of Euclid. 

Whitehall's capacity issues I think are not ones extrapolable to single track terminals at large. Trains entering the station have to traverse a steep descending grade into slow switches which lead to a curving platform, a situation which limits terminal capacity beyond that inherent in its type of design. Indeed, a well operated (no sleeping TOs, stepping back during rush hours, etc) single track terminus can turn fifteen trains per hour without issue. Given that we're rebuilding Essex into this new configuration, I think it's a safe assumption that it would be designed in such a way that it could turn at least 12tph, if not more. 

Now, 12tph isn't exactly some massive amount of service, which is why during rush hours, I'd suggest the  be extended to some South Brooklyn terminus (9th Ave? Bay Pkwy?) in order to provide higher frequency core corridor service along 4th Local/Nassau. Such an extension would have the additional benefit of eliminating termination conflicts at Broad. Combined, you then have 24tph from Nassau to South Brooklyn, and 20 or more tph from Broadway to Fulton. You'd also gain marginal amounts of capacity on the  from the elimination of the merges at Hoyt and Canal (remember, this is being paired with a restructuring of 8th Ave service), giving a total theoretical capacity increase of about 28 tph (22 Montague today, 26 Cranberry today to 24 Montague, 22 Whitehall/Schermerhorn, 30 Cranberry).

It's also worth noting that, as @R68OnBroadway pointed out above, the reopening of the side plats at Canal/Bowery would allow the current n/b track to be used for train terminaion (with a few switch edits), thus increasing Montague theoretical capacity to 30tph -- though I doubt such levels will be necessary any time in the near future. 

Aside from the fact such an arrangement wouldn't add capacity, its construction would be technically challenging. The Montague tubes are cast iron shield tunnels -- their lining is integral to their stability. Thus (to my understanding of this engineering, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the connection of anything to the tunnel would entail digging a cut down to the bore, removing the lining, creating a junction cavern, and then covering it all back up. Doable, but extremely expensive and disruptive -- so much so that I wonder if, given the relative cheapness of modern boring techniques, it would be more cost effective to just tunnel from the provisions at Whitehall. 

Yes, I remember you mentioning that issue with the cast-iron shield tunnels when I previously suggested extending the  to Euclid. It probably is better to just build another tunnel from the Whitehall provisions, then. And I would certainly prefer it over shoehorning an 11th St Cut-type of track connection in downtown Brooklyn. 

As for turning the K, if the factors that limit Whitehall’s capacity would not be in play at Essex, then yes, run the K service to/from Essex.

Edited June 22, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Though if the new tunnel turns south on Boerum towards State, that sort of puts the  off in its own isolated corner and possibly forces it to cross under the Joralemon tubes while still under water before it makes landfall in Manhattan. 

Edited June 22, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[officiallyliam]

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

Absolutely with you on expansion provisions, by the way. My pet idea is a SAS recapture of the Atlantic Branch, making a sort of super express line to Jamaica. A man can dream, after all...

That would align perfectly with a State Street tunnel; the tracks at Atlantic Terminal end facing State Street and expanding them could be a simple matter of just punching through the wall, if that's possible. And a super-express from Jamaica to Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan would be great, since there's really no quick way to make that journey now, and such a line would simultaneously relieve the Fulton line and provide riders in Woodhaven and Richmond Hill with a genuine express train. And it's not totally infeasible, either: the Atlantic Branch exists perfectly intact and is absolutely usable for subway service.

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

In this current climate, conversations about major routing and service structure changes are more viable than they've been in a long while, so I'd honestly just go for the grand prize. That said, which flavor of capacity capture you go for depends again on what you're willing to ante up. If you're predicating this effort on a full shakeup of junction operation practices, then you can just mirror 59th St at 50th St, send the  via 63, the new 8th Ave exp service via QB local, and leave it at that. Flexibility for all who we can give it to, express/local variety on trans-river corridors, et voila, a new 2-track trunk line has been discovered in Manhattan. That said, if junction ops aren't fixed, or the fixes aren't drastic enough, you're left with solely the option of full scale deinterlining.

As an optimist, I want to believe that fixing the way junctions and terminals operate, and upgrading the signaling, should be the way forward - even though I find the isolation of lines that deinterlining allows to be attractive. Queens Blvd has two options: and via 53rd, and via 63rd, with local and as express (the flexibility choice), or local via 53rd and both as expresses to 63rd (the deinterlined choice). Both options mean that something has to change in order to keep CPW in order; in the latter option, you could simply revive the old to cover 8th Avenue and CPW local stops in Manhattan. While the pragmatist in me says the latter is superior, the idealist in me wants to make the former option happen.

I am curious, though: what would some improvements to junction ops look like?

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Though if the new tunnel turns south on Boerum towards State, that sort of puts the  off in its own isolated corner and possibly forces it to cross under the Joralemon tubes while still under water before it makes landfall in Manhattan. 

The isn't really isolated running on State Street - it still transfers to the at Hoyt. While it loses some of the transfers it has today, that's sort of the point of this: the IND lines (Fulton and Crosstown) were planned with characteristic IND competitive interests in mind and thus lack transfers to the BMT and IRT; sending the to Fulton allows IND riders to have easier trips to BMT and IRT destinations - such as the heart of the Financial District and Union Square. So while the route might become somewhat more "isolated," it helps lines like the and become far less isolated. And as @RR503 mentioned, the provisions at Whitehall should be built in a way that allows them to cross under Joralemon, considering the BMT was built later (it wouldn't make sense to put in the bellmouths if you couldn't cross the tunnels right in front of you!)

Edited June 23, 2018 by officiallyliam

[RR503]

40 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I am curious, though: what would some improvements to junction ops look like?

It’s honestly a lot of the same stuff that needs to be done elsewhere in the system — fluidity and speed improvements.

Right now, the largest capacity killers with junctions are unecessarily delayed lineups, slow diverging speeds, and a lack of ability to temporarily reduce train spacing around key merges. 

The former issue really only can be solved with internal data processing improvements. Right now, the B division operates junctions in two ways: WYPIWYG and manual lineup calls. The former works okay for relatively simple junctions, but is prone to operator mispunches and is subject to the lucidness and efficiency of the tower operator in establishing the requested lineup in a reasonable amount of time. The latter is simply a shitshow — we shouldn’t have trains stopping by homeballs asking for routings anymore. This is 2018. 

A relatively simple solution to all this nonsense would be better leveraging current data streams in itrac (MTA’s train tracking program, fed by block occupancy and the beacons). If the agency could make its computers capable of reliably assigning a service designation to a series of block occupancies — whether that be through TO confirmation via punches or something totally different — then tower operators (or honestly computers) could set lineups in advance, obviating the need for the metaphorical/literal games of telephone. 

The issue of slow interlocking speeds can honestly be resolved by just using the ‘right’ junctions for train service. As we all know, many current service patterns cut against those that the infrastructure was designed for, a fact which places into regular service interlockings and switches that weren’t designed for such use. Those turnouts frequently have low D speeds (10-15 mph rather than 20+) which are limiting of capacity beyond the reality of the merge itself. Thus, even if there is no net change in merges during a service restructuring, the movement of a merge to a higher speed interlocking frequently can have a positive capacity impact. This, for example, is why I’m okay with using 50th for merges over Canal — that interlocking was designed for it. 

Finally, there’s the issue of train spacing. No matter how good you are at train schedule management, one will eventually have to deal with the situation in which two trains arrive at a merge simultaneously. For one to have a functioning merge, it is absolutely imperative that one plans to mitigate those situations, as having a train sit outside a merge for extended periods of time is a quick and easy way to slaughter capacity. 

Of course, central to this issue is the previously-discussed issue of promptness in dispatching. If lineups are reset quickly, you’ve already won half the battle. Then, however, you have to be able to move the train onto its destination track as fast as possible — I’d much rather have a train stuck after a merge than before one, as being stuck after a merge eliminates your impact on uninvolved services. Thus, you must have a robust and — crucially — well signed system of ST signals in place to ease trains into their new routings. Thankfully, a good number of interlockings already have this feature, but the STs themselves are frequently hidden and/or poorly placed. Elucidating them, placing them in such a way that they can be used to bring an entire train through interlocking limits, and then encouraging T/Os to use them all need to happen for this stuff to be ameliorated — you can’t just approach it from one angle. 

So there you have it! I’m sure there’s something I’ve missed, but I hope that’s a good start at least. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

It’s honestly a lot of the same stuff that needs to be done elsewhere in the system — fluidity and speed improvements. 

If the subway were designed as a multilevel network, with each level being occupied by a single line, with switches being used only in absolutely necessary circumstances, fluidity might be addressed completely. For example, consider a 4-track line with terminals on each end similar to the layout at Jamaica–179th Street. I'd construct a storage yard and maintenance facility immediately after the end of revenue trackage, similar to that of New Lots Avenue. This storage yard and maintenance facility would be located above ground, with tracks feeding into every level below. Concerning the issue of speed, I'd toss timers out the window, except where they'd be absolutely necessary for safety reasons. Such exceptions would include sharp curves to prevent derailments and stations located just after steep grades to avoid overruns.